Reasonable article. Frankly, I think a lot the tension could be eased up by Mourinho just being a little more relaxed and happier and not trying to be controversial in the press.

He just seems so absolutely bored and grumpy. He doesn't inspire confidence when you see him on the sidelines, he seems to hate it. He's never been a charmer that way but at least had a charisma about him. I don't see it any more.

Reasonable article. Frankly, I think a lot the tension could be eased up by Mourinho just being a little more relaxed and happier and not trying to be controversial in the press.

He just seems so absolutely bored and grumpy. He doesn't inspire confidence when you see him on the sidelines, he seems to hate it. He's never been a charmer that way but at least had a charisma about him. I don't see it any more.

Click to expand...

That’s a valid point. I don’t expect him to smile like a clown but I think his current mood doesn’t help either.

Reasonable article. Frankly, I think a lot the tension could be eased up by Mourinho just being a little more relaxed and happier and not trying to be controversial in the press.

He just seems so absolutely bored and grumpy. He doesn't inspire confidence when you see him on the sidelines, he seems to hate it. He's never been a charmer that way but at least had a charisma about him. I don't see it any more.

Click to expand...

I think we all are after watching the last few performances!
Good article though and not the usual hatchet job.

Seems like a fair article. Last year looks like it was just an underachieving blip for City (just as I'm sure this year is an overachieving blip). All the misgivings that we had about City as a club looking better organised and better prepared in terms of football direction from youth team, through facilities to first team recruitment and manager appointment planning look correct.

It's a good sign than we are fighting back at the youth team level and that we have, at least, stopped the rot by recruiting first teamers who mostly actually play like first teamers. There's just a lot more to do, and Mourinho and this season's performances are only part of that story.

So do I, City have been planning for Pep ever since they got Tixi, we had Fergie at the time and did not forward plan. I think Moyes appointment was a bit of arrogance on our part and then when that failed, LVG was only available and we got him, he stopped the Moyes rot and then started his own.

There will be some that won't be bothered to read. Here are some highlights:

The under-resourced youth system is now receiving levels of investment similar to Manchester City and Chelsea. Van Gaal's priority was never going to be youth in his last job as a manager.

United also lost Sir Alex Ferguson and chief executive David Gill, a respected figure at the club and in football, in 2013. With them went invaluable know-how, as was immediately evident when Gill's replacement Ed Woodward, a banker, said the team didn't need a lot of "re-tooling".

Click to expand...

Guardiola has signed 16 players as City manager, with Mourinho recruiting seven for United.

In terms of basic figures, Guardiola has outspent Mourinho by £75m in his time at the Etihad, but that figure leaps to £110m if add-ons and incentives are included.

Either way, City have invested more in their squad, both financially and in terms of personnel, since Guardiola arrived than United have under Mourinho.

And Guardiola was working with stronger foundations when he walked into the Etihad than those Mourinho inherited at Old Trafford.

I don't understand the obsession with a Director of Football. The two big instances of them working successfully (City and Bayern) have long connections between their DoF and their manager. If anything I believe a DoF would make it harder to attract a top manager that wants to bring in certain players.

Could someone educate me on the strengths and weaknesses of having one?

I don't understand the obsession with a Director of Football. The two big instances of them working successfully (City and Bayern) have long connections between their DoF and their manager. If anything I believe a DoF would make it harder to attract a top manager that wants to bring in certain players.

Could someone educate me on the strengths and weaknesses of having one?

Click to expand...

I think that's being a little naive. A DOF would ideally work in tandem with managers. Their job is to overlook the whole direction of the club, to make sure we're recruiting players and managers that suit our 'plan' or identity going forward. I think a DOF or someone of the sort who overlooks that stuff is important in today's game as managers are changed extremely often and without a DOF you're asking for a much greater job from all incoming managers. Instead if a DOF or someone of the sort was present, the manager being hired would suit our style and identity and he'd have a squad of players who would suit him too, albeit they may need a few tweaks and changes.

A drawback is your point, some managers might be old school and wouldn't enjoy not having 100% control, but I don't think that's really a sustainable approach for sustained success in today's game. Managers change far too often and both fans and boards are far too reactionary now, one bad season and managers are told to feck off in today's game.

There will be some that won't be bothered to read. Here are some highlights:

Click to expand...

The 16 players signed by Pep vs 7 by Mourinho was news to me. And gives a whole new perspective to all that chat about similar total spends. Clearly, the fact we spent so much money on Pogba distorts the comparison in terms of total spend but I’m sure Mou would be much happier if a similar proportion of our squad was signed on his watch.

Just wanted to chime in regarding Mitten.
This is not a comment about the article itself, but remember to take anything written by Mitten with a pinch of salt.
He is United fan first and foremost, but he also has his own self-interest agenda.
I lost all respect for him after his behaviour during Moyes days and I will continue to ignore whatever he writes.

My big worry with a DoF is that it’s another uncertainty in uncertain times. If things go badly, how do we know who’s to blane? Maybe we end up with a good manager but a bad DOF? Yet it’s inevitably the manager who will get sacked. Then we rinse and repeat.

I think that's being a little naive. A DOF would ideally work in tandem with managers. Their job is to overlook the whole direction of the club, to make sure we're recruiting players and managers that suit our 'plan' or identity going forward. I think a DOF or someone of the sort who overlooks that stuff is important in today's game as managers are changed extremely often and without a DOF you're asking for a much greater job from all incoming managers. Instead if a DOF or someone of the sort was present, the manager being hired would suit our style and identity and he'd have a squad of players who would suit him too, albeit they may need a few tweaks and changes.

Click to expand...

I don't disagree with your point. But look at the Persic saga as an example from this summer. There was a player that the manager preferred tactically that (if rumors are true) the club wouldn't sanction a bid for. To me the football is a revolving game tactically. Look at how everyone copied Conte with a 3-4-3 last year with the success he had. When Van Gaal was here and we played 5 at the back other managers followed suit. I think its more important to have the proper players the manager wants rather than the ones the club wants.

Maybe I'm missing something but it feels like the last few years that our club has been in this same crisis trying to balance "The United Way" vs. a Galatico approach like Madrid for example (how Woodward wants the club to be).

I don't understand the obsession with a Director of Football. The two big instances of them working successfully (City and Bayern) have long connections between their DoF and their manager. If anything I believe a DoF would make it harder to attract a top manager that wants to bring in certain players.

Could someone educate me on the strengths and weaknesses of having one?

Click to expand...

If you have a long term manager then it's fine if there is no DoF, the long term manager has certain style and he will only buy players suited to his needs, so no problem. But at clubs like Chelsea who sack manager every other season, you cannot give the manager the power to sign according to his wish because once he is fired the next manager would want to discard the players that he feels doesn't suit his needs and will buy new players so there will be no stability in the squad, just like us right now, Moyes didn't want SAF's hand picked transfers, LvG booted out Moyes' signings, Mourinho did the same to LvG's signings.

It all seems a bit meaningless. If players we signed were performing how we anticipated then it'd be a good transfer 'strategy', wouldn't it?

If City were not smashing records he'd probably write and article lauding the fact we're 'back on track', with a 'cohesive transfer policy'. If he's arguing that the club should try to sign players who will help the team, then I agree. But it all seems a bit lazy. People lap it up because it's what some of us want to hear.

Good run of form:

- Write an article mentioning the 'rebirth' of he club, praising he forward planning, say the club is 'back on its feet', etc.

I don't disagree with your point. But look at the Persic saga as an example from this summer. There was a player that the manager preferred tactically that (if rumors are true) the club wouldn't sanction a bid for. To me the football is a revolving game tactically. Look at how everyone copied Conte with a 3-4-3 last year with the success he had. When Van Gaal was here and we played 5 at the back other managers followed suit. I think its more important to have the proper players the manager wants rather than the ones the club wants.

Maybe I'm missing something but it feels like the last few years that our club has been in this same crisis trying to balance "The United Way" vs. a Galatico approach like Madrid for example (how Woodward wants the club to be).

Click to expand...

Inter were being difficult with that transfer just like Madrid were with Morata, they were constantly changing goalposts regarding the transfer fee, we rightly turned that down. Mourinho should have had a backup plan.

He seems to think we need a left winger. Surely a right winger is the area in need?

I agree with the rest of his list though: two full backs, CM and a No.10.

Click to expand...

We need both.
But it was evident in our last game, that from the left, none of our players have the skill to do a cross. Young can do, though due to his age, we can't expect him to play too many games.
Had we got Perisic in the Summer, in the Burnley game, I have no doubt that we'd have scored 2-3 goals from crosses which Perisic would've delivered.
I think it's a travesty that we have a Lukaku in our team, but the players around him do not have the ability to deliver a decent cross.
And don't even get me started on corners.

My big worry with a DoF is that it’s another uncertainty in uncertain times. If things go badly, how do we know who’s to blane? Maybe we end up with a good manager but a bad DOF? Yet it’s inevitably the manager who will get sacked. Then we rinse and repeat.

Click to expand...

The big problem in the Dof thingy is that people are taking it for granted that the Dof appointment will be bang on.

Inter were being difficult with that transfer just like Madrid were with Morata, they were constantly changing goalposts regarding the transfer fee, we rightly turned that down. Mourinho should have had a backup plan.

Click to expand...

Inter were not being difficult. They wanted more money. Simple.
We offered £31M. They said no...give us more. We did nothing.
£31M for a top class left winger who is at the peak of his powers, is totally unrealistic.

The 16 players signed by Pep vs 7 by Mourinho was news to me. And gives a whole new perspective to all that chat about similar total spends. Clearly, the fact we spent so much money on Pogba distorts the comparison in terms of total spend but I’m sure Mou would be much happier if a similar proportion of our squad was signed on his watch.

If City were not smashing records he'd probably write and article lauding the fact we're 'back on track', with a 'cohesive transfer policy'.

Click to expand...

We do have a more cohesive transfer strategy now. Mourinho is the first manager since Ferguson to have a clear idea entering the market every summer of what he wants. He hasn't gotten all of it but he has addressed areas of need and strengthened us, though not enough obviously, in certain areas of need.

The issue we're seeing with the squad is the failed transfers under Moyes and LVG.

Inter were not being difficult. They wanted more money. Simple.
We offered £31M. They said no...give us more. We did nothing.
£31M for a top class left winger who is at the peak of his powers, is totally unrealistic.

Click to expand...

Didn't we bid 45 mil or something then there were ridiculous rumours like them asking Martial for exchange.

We need both.
But it was evident in our last game, that from the left, none of our players have the skill to do a cross. Young can do, though due to his age, we can't expect him to play too many games.
Had we got Perisic in the Summer, in the Burnley game, I have no doubt that we'd have scored 2-3 goals from crosses which Perisic would've delivered.
I think it's a travesty that we have a Lukaku in our team, but the players around him do not have the ability to deliver a decent cross.
And don't even get me started on corners.

Click to expand...

Let's be realistic for a minute. We cannot just go and sign half a team worth of new players and leave players like Martial sitting out. Martial is a quality player on the left and if we added a RW who can cross the ball, there is nothing wrong with having a player like Martial on the left who likes to dribble and cut inside.

Adding a RW, No.10, a fullback or 2 and another CM to act as cover is plenty!

We do have a more cohesive transfer strategy now. Mourinho is the first manager since Ferguson to have a clear idea entering the market every summer of what he wants. He hasn't gotten all of it but he has addressed areas of need and strengthened us, though not enough obviously, in certain areas of need.

The issue we're seeing with the squad is the failed transfers under Moyes and LVG.

Click to expand...

I don't even know what transfer 'strategy' looks like, and I expect neither does Mitten. Beyond: players that are successful = good strategy. Players that aren't successful = bad strategy.

Honestly I've no idea why this guy gets given time of day. I suspect he wouldn't be if it wasn't for the accent. His articles are horrible and ramble on about any old irrelevant shite to meet the word count. He's by far the least insightful 'features' journalist there is.

"United also lost Sir Alex Ferguson and chief executive David Gill, a respected figure at the club and in football, in 2013"

Surprised he didn't stretch out the article with a paragraph explaining to everyone that the club used to be called Newton Heath or that we play at a stadium called Old Trafford. Man steals a living, he really does.

The 16 players signed by Pep vs 7 by Mourinho was news to me. And gives a whole new perspective to all that chat about similar total spends. Clearly, the fact we spent so much money on Pogba distorts the comparison in terms of total spend but I’m sure Mou would be much happier if a similar proportion of our squad was signed on his watch.

Click to expand...

Well we did spend 165m on Pogba and Lukaku. They spent big on fullbacks this window, but also got a lot of very good deals like both Sane and Jesus for around 35m each.

Also a few of those signings from Pep were duds, he just cut them right away though. We seem to hold our players and give them multiple chances to fail before cutting them loose. Even then they still usually manage to last 5 years for whatever reason.

Generally I think Mourinho wasn't aggressive enough in his rebuild (also his ambitions for the team he's building, being one to stifle like teams with less funds usually go for rather then dominate like teams with unlimited funds tend to go for, but that's a different conversation). He pretty much did a slow and smooth transition, while Pep just threw everything he didn't want away and replaced them. Mou's style is what Moyes should've done after Fergie, but Mourinho now should've been more aggressive as we were pretty shit the last 5 years so a rip up was needed more then anything. City spent more to get those extra players, true, but they also sold quite a bit more. We just hung on to most of ours.

It all seems a bit meaningless. If players we signed were performing how we anticipated then it'd be a good transfer 'strategy', wouldn't it?

If City were not smashing records he'd probably write and article lauding the fact we're 'back on track', with a 'cohesive transfer policy'. If he's arguing that the club should try to sign players who will help the team, then I agree. But it all seems a bit lazy. People lap it up because it's what some of us want to hear.

Good run of form:

- Write an article mentioning the 'rebirth' of he club, praising he forward planning, say the club is 'back on its feet', etc.

If you have a long term manager then it's fine if there is no DoF, the long term manager has certain style and he will only buy players suited to his needs, so no problem. But at clubs like Chelsea who sack manager every other season, you cannot give the manager the power to sign according to his wish because once he is fired the next manager would want to discard the players that he feels doesn't suit his needs and will buy new players so there will be no stability in the squad, just like us right now, Moyes didn't want SAF's hand picked transfers, LvG booted out Moyes' signings, Mourinho did the same to LvG's signings.

That's how I see it anyway.

Click to expand...

My personal issue with this logic is that who would hire a manager with the intent of only having him on board a few years. If its a stopgap then don't back the manager to the tune of 250 million in a transfer window. When Mourinho was signed I genuinely felt he wanted to be here 6-8 years. He knew to create a lasting legacy he could go to Fergie's club and restore them to the pinnacle of English football. His Ego needs it, and he knew the club needs it as well. That is why the fit made so much sense.

Even take Chelsea as a club. Since 2012 they have had like 5-6 managers since 2012, but they don't overhaul their roster with every new manager.

My big worry with a DoF is that it’s another uncertainty in uncertain times. If things go badly, how do we know who’s to blane? Maybe we end up with a good manager but a bad DOF? Yet it’s inevitably the manager who will get sacked. Then we rinse and repeat.

Click to expand...

That's a good point indeed. The issue for me is that decisions are made by one man, not that this man is the manager. If a club puts all its eggs in one basket, it is equally risky whether the basket has the title of a DoF or a manager. I think clubs need enough footballing people in high positions who more or less share a specific footballing vision. Barcelona for example had that consistency of vision for a long time, Txiki Begiristain was just another employee in a long line of people sharing a lot of similar views in how they wanted the club to play. You see the same with Bayern and their armada of former players and legends all involved in the footballing side of decision of making. I remember Fergie talking about them as a good example of how a football club should have that sort of character at the board level.

We are trying to find that one man who will make it all tick because Fergie did it. The football landscape has changed too much to trust any one man with such decisions.